[666maslo666]

You do know that part of that ideology is "do not give your kids vaccinations", which directly leads to something called "weakened herd immunity", which leads to something called "more sick people", right? If the refusal to vaccinate would only harm the person not being vaccinated, I wouldn't be so adamant about punishing these people. They are implicitly endangering everyone around them though, and so other standards have to be applied.

Then make those vaccinations for kids mandatory, but as long as parents officialy have right to choose, this point is really moot. It is standard practice in many countries already to have mandatory vaccinations for kids. Legally and morally, the responsibility lies with the parents who endanger their kids and others. Not with anti-vaccination advocates.

And this holds true for other kinds of nutjobs, too. Free speech restrictions are not the answer.

[Luis Dias]

OTOH, this idea that the government can decide for you what is best for your children is also a dangerous idea.

Not that I prefer the idea that the parents always know better, etc. What I am saying is that we are always in a dangerous setting here, there's no safe haven. On one side, libertarianism points to abhorrent social darwinism (let the kids of stupid parents suffer, the gene pool thanks them), while the other points to totalitarianism. I don't think these answers will ever be decided in a simple, peaceful manner. This tension will always exist and we should just accept it.

[BloodEagle]

You do know that part of that ideology is "do not give your kids vaccinations", which directly leads to something called "weakened herd immunity", which leads to something called "more sick people", right? If the refusal to vaccinate would only harm the person not being vaccinated, I wouldn't be so adamant about punishing these people. They are implicitly endangering everyone around them though, and so other standards have to be applied.

Then make those vaccinations for kids mandatory, but as long as parents officialy have right to choose, this point is really moot. It is standard practice in many countries already to have mandatory vaccinations for kids. Legally and morally, the responsibility lies with the parents who endanger their kids and others. Not with anti-vaccination advocates.

And this holds true for other kinds of nutjobs, too. Free speech restrictions are not the answer.

Are you a Bajoran wormhole alien?  Because your reasoning lacks a certain... linearity.

[666maslo666]

The other issue is that this is by default not a matter of self-decision as most of the people involved are not deciding for themselves, but for others. Their children, specifically.

Just to return to this, I think it is a very good argument and I agree. Then why are our conclusion different? Because I apply it to legal matters, too. You cannot ban speech because thats a personal right and a matter of self-decision, among other things. But you can regulate what parents can or cannot do to their kids because someone else has to decide for them anyway, we ought to protect them, there is a much stronger precedent to do so, and you act closer to the real issue so you dont punish plenty of innocent people for potential but not actual harm and stuff.

Nonono, the difference is that the Jehova's Witnesses argue against blood transfusions on a moral and spiritual basis; they aren't making any factual claims. Antivaxxers, though, are (knowingly or otherwise) making empirically false claims about the dangers of vaccination. I don't think I'd want someone who said vaccines eat your soul to be prosecuted, for instance.

Why woudnt you, if the consequences are the same? It should not really matter on what basis are they arguing. And I am sure there are plenty of anti-medicine cranks who do argue using bad science, even among Jehova witnesses.

[NGTM-1R]

You cannot ban speech because thats a personal right and a matter of self-decision, among other things.

Certain types of speech that encourage people to harm children have been banned in the past on the grounds they add nothing to the national discourse, save for their harmful content. (Abortion information.) Some of them remained banned. (Pornography involving minors.)

As what the anti-vaccination crowd are saying is factually untrue, it demonstrably adds nothing to the national discourse. It is at best white noise and at worst intentional interference. It is also speech that is harmful to children. It thus falls under the loose historical precedents for such action.

[MP-Ryan]

It is standard practice in many countries already to have mandatory vaccinations for kids.

No, it's not.  The closest thing to mandatory vaccination in the G8 is policy in some individual US states that refuses kids without records of vaccination to public schools.  There isn't a democracy on the planet in which every parent is forced to vaccinate their kids (unfortunately).

The trouble with your reasoning is this:

Anti-vax nutjobs rely on fear and the pervasive spreading of empirically-false information to advance their agenda.  There isn't a legitimate piece of scientific evidence that supports their claims.  But the unfortunate part is that it doesn't hurt them - mopst anti-vax parents actually have their vaccinations because their parents weren't idiots.  It hurts their kids.  The courts have upheld that free speech rights - such as those of Jehova's Witnesses concerning blood transfusions - can be legally suppressed when a child below the age of majority is put at risk because of the parents' belief system and ignorance of / refusal to acknowledge empirically-sound scientific evidence.  The anti-vax crowd occupies the same political space.  It is one thing to say "I don't believe in vaccination because I think it causes autism / is just a money grab by big pharma / whatever crazy conspiracy bull**** they come up with today."  It is quite another to say "You shouldn't vaccinate your kids because it causes <above> and here is all the scientific evidence," then proceed to lay out links to conspiracy information that they misrepresent as science which some people are just stupid enough to fall for.  That's where I draw the line - the former should be protected speech.  The later should be criminally prosecuted because of its impact on public health.

And if you don't believe there's an impact on public health, I won't spoil it for you, but look up Japan's history with whooping cough vaccination in the 1970s - what happened before the vaccine scare and spread of false information, and what happened after.  Make particular note of infant mortality rates.

[Luis Dias]

Well, to be fair, you'd be a total hypocrite if you believed that "it causes autism / is just a money grab by big pharma / whatever crazy conspiracy bull**** they come up with today", and then would not spread the word that "You shouldn't vaccinate your kids because it causes <above> and here is all the scientific evidence"... because said pseudo-science is precisely what drove these people reaching anti-vax conclusions.

I also cringe whenever someone proposes legalizing against being a science denier or something similar. Not saying you haven't a case here, but watch out for the establishment of a very very dangerous precedent.

[666maslo666]

No, it's not.  The closest thing to mandatory vaccination in the G8 is policy in some individual US states that refuses kids without records of vaccination to public schools.  There isn't a democracy on the planet in which every parent is forced to vaccinate their kids (unfortunately).

You are wrong here.

http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=20183

Compulsory vaccinations for children is standard practice in many countries. I know for a fact it is here in Slovakia, at least.

The courts have upheld that free speech rights - such as those of Jehova's Witnesses concerning blood transfusions - can be legally suppressed when a child below the age of majority is put at risk because of the parents' belief system and ignorance of / refusal to acknowledge empirically-sound scientific evidence.

Source, please.


I dont doubt anti-vaccination scaremongering can have some impact on public health. But that does not justify freedom of speech restrictions. It may justify compulsory vaccinations, at best, in fact that would be a lot more effective solution.

If we banned every kind of speech that can potentialy have negative impact on public, then that is one huge slippery slope and a huge intrusion into private matters of the people.

[MP-Ryan]

You are wrong here.

http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=20183

Compulsory vaccinations for children is standard practice in many countries. I know for a fact it is here in Slovakia, at least.

The word mandatory/compulsory is misleading in this context.  Parents do not face criminal sanctions for refusal to vaccinate their kids.  Even in places like Slovakia where the could face fines the courts are ruling against mandatory vaccination.  This piece is timely.

The courts have upheld that free speech rights - such as those of Jehova's Witnesses concerning blood transfusions - can be legally suppressed when a child below the age of majority is put at risk because of the parents' belief system and ignorance of / refusal to acknowledge empirically-sound scientific evidence.

Source, please.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/06/26/supreme-blood026.html

There are similar cases in the US.

[I dont doubt anti-vaccination scaremongering can have some impact on public health. But that does not justify freedom of speech restrictions. It may justify compulsory vaccinations, at best, in fact that would be a lot more effective solution.

If we banned every kind of speech that can potentialy have negative impact on public, then that is one huge slippery slope and a huge intrusion into private matters of the people.

Like someone else said, your consistency is a little off.  So it's not OK to prosecute people for false claims which should really not be protected as free speech, but it's perfectly fine to force people to vaccinate their kids?  The former restricts people from spread false information that poses a severe risk to public health.  The latter forces people to inject substances into their bodies without their consent.  I'm all for making vaccination essentially mandatory through incentives (like no public education without it, reduced health coverage, etc etc), but I draw the line at criminal sanctions for refusing.

Also, slippery slope arguments are worthless and intellectually lazy.

[Phantom Hoover]

The courts have upheld that free speech rights - such as those of Jehova's Witnesses concerning blood transfusions - can be legally suppressed when a child below the age of majority is put at risk because of the parents' belief system and ignorance of / refusal to acknowledge empirically-sound scientific evidence.

Source, please.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/06/26/supreme-blood026.html

There are similar cases in the US.

This has nothing to do with suppression of free speech.

[Scotty]

It has everything to do with what was asked for the source about.  That goalpost is staying right where it is.

[MP-Ryan]

It has everything to do with what was asked for the source about.  That goalpost is staying right where it is.

Indeed, and under Canadian Constitutional law, rights of free speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, etc are all captured under the same section (s.2) of the Charter, so that case has everything to do with free speech and its suppression in favour of medical treatment.

[karajorma]

Even comparing this to fraud seems inaccurate. This seems more analogous to people who lie about their HIV infection to potential partners, in that bodily harm can result.

While I agree with you in part, Andrew Wakefield for instance should have been prosecuted for fraud. He received money from a company for proving that there was a link between autism and MMR vaccines. He stood to make more money whenever he was called as an expert witness. But everything he said about the link was a lie. A lie designed to make him money.

I don't see how that isn't either fraud or an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

And I don't think he's the only anti-vaxer to publish lies in order to sell something.

[Black Wolf]

And I don't think he's the only anti-vaxer to publish lies in order to sell something.

Relevant link is relevant:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-21/anti-vaccination-group-fails-to-stop-black-salve-advertising/4772876

[NGTM-1R]

I don't see how that isn't either fraud or an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

It's fraud in that case, but it's also probably something else because of the possibility of doing physical harm. (Malpractice? It could probably fit under some states' definitions of assault, but there's no accounting for that...)

You could make a really good Law & Order episode out of this and McCoy charging someone with depraved indifference homicide, but I don't think that's reasonable for reality.

[karajorma]

I don't really care which charge they hit people like him with as long as it sticks. I agree that you probably could add some sort of public endangerment charge as well as the fraud one. It's just that I think that fraud would probably be the easiest one to prosecute him for. It's obvious he lied for money

As this thread shows, too many people would by a free speech argument to make it as easy.

[666maslo666]

The word mandatory/compulsory is misleading in this context.  Parents do not face criminal sanctions for refusal to vaccinate their kids.  Even in places like Slovakia where the could face fines the courts are ruling against mandatory vaccination.  This piece is timely.

Compulsory does not neccessarily mean it has to be a crime. It is still compulsory even with a fine and such. I am sure even a fine is going to ensure high enough compliance to achieve herd immunity. There arent that many anti-vaxxers who are determined enough to refuse still. I read somewhere that most common cause for not vaccinating is actually lack of awareness or lazyness.

If refusal to vaccinate does cause widespread issues, then punishments should be tougher, I dont have a problem with that.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/06/26/supreme-blood026.html

There are similar cases in the US.

Thats not about free speech.

Like someone else said, your consistency is a little off. So it's not OK to prosecute people for false claims which should really not be protected as free speech, but it's perfectly fine to force people to vaccinate their kids?

Yes, of course! Free speech rights are one of the most basic, personal and important, certainly more than right to decide what to do about OTHER UNCONSENTING PEOPLES bodies. So how is this inconsistent? Most countries on the planet will force parents or child to comply if the health of the child is endagered, and for a good reason, it is basically child abuse to not do so. But to ban speech that may be potentialy dangerous for society, like anti-vaxxers? That would not fly mostly anywhere, is a huge ad-hoc precedent, and is a big intrusion into private matters of people that dont even necessarily affect third persons directly.

You are putting a cart before the horse in a big way. First we need to ban something, then there is nothing for a long long ... long stretch, and then if the matter is serious enough we may talk about free speech restrictions. Your position is like legalising child molestation yet keeping a ban on child porn (****ety analogy but you get my drift, there arent that many justified free speech restrictions that I can use).

[666maslo666]

Indeed, and under Canadian Constitutional law, rights of free speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, etc are all captured under the same section (s.2) of the Charter, so that case has everything to do with free speech and its suppression in favour of medical treatment.

It does not matter what section are they under.

Forcing a child to get a transfusion is not an issue of free speech. Not like understood by everyone else, at least, and not like what we talk about here. The question of whether a child can decide about their own body and from what age is an interesting one, but free speech or expression issue it is certainly not.

[Phantom Hoover]

So I think this discussion is fundamentally going nowhere, and I think that's because maslo is working under the assumption that absolutely unrestricted free speech is an unquestionable human right that comes before all other considerations. I don't agree, and I suspect the same is true of most of the other people disagreeing with him.

[666maslo666]

So I think this discussion is fundamentally going nowhere, and I think that's because maslo is working under the assumption that absolutely unrestricted free speech is an unquestionable human right that comes before all other considerations. I don't agree, and I suspect the same is true of most of the other people disagreeing with him.

Huh? I have written before that I dont think absolute free speech is a good idea, so thats not what my assumption is. I just dont think free speech is so unimportant that we can ban any speech we disagree with at the first sign of potential trouble.